Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered Mr X’s reports of breaches of planning control. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to act against reported breaches of planning control.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In 2005, the Council approved an application for a single storey extension to a care home. The planning permission states that development must start within five years of the date of the permission.
6. In 2019, Mr X bought his home which is next door but one to the care home. He complained to the Council the development started in 2024, well outside the five years given by the planning permission. Therefore planning permission has expired.
7. The Council says its records show its’ Building Control Manager wrote to the developer in 2010 confirming the planning permission was implemented in 2010.
8. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision that the planning application was implemented in 2010. He has provided copies of online photos of the site which do not show any development. However, minor works such as digging a trench to contain foundations, or part of the foundations of a building, is a material operation capable of keeping a planning permission alive. Such works will not necessarily be visible on satellite imagery. The Council says its’ records show the permission was implemented in 2010 and we have no reason to question this.
9. Mr X also complains the extension is not build according to the planning permission.
10. The Council confirms officers have visited the site twice and inspected the building. It is satisfied the work conforms to the 2005 planning permission.
11. I understand Mr X is concerned with the impact of the development on his home. He says that despite there being a property and garden between his home and the application site, there are windows in the single storey extension that will allow views from the residents of the care home into his garden and the rear of his home.
12. Mr X bought his home in 2019. The Council granted planning permission for the development in 2005 and it confirms there is no breach of planning control on the site. In English law, there is a principle of “let the buyer beware”. The rule places the responsibility on the buyer and their solicitor to carry out all necessary due diligence before deciding to proceed with a purchase. This includes checking on extant planning permissions which may affect a property.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his reports of breaches of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman